Search form

More Evidence of a Broken Patent System

More Evidence of a Broken Patent System

The patent system is broken. We’ve been talking about it for years, and we just rolled out a new site (defendinnovation.org) to do something about it, where we hope you’ll join us in coming up with solutions that make sense for innovation.

Now we've got some new developments that further prove just how flawed the modern software patent system is:

First, today we saw a new report confirming what we already knew: patent trolls are costing the economy serious money (to the tune of $29 billion in 2011 alone!) and they disproportionately harm small businesses. The paper, by James Bessen and Michael Meurer (who also wrote the important book, Patent Failure), combs through the data and concludes:

The rapid growth and high cost of NPE [non-practicing entities, or trolls] litigation documented here should set off an alarm warning policy makers that the patent system still significant reform to make it a truly effective system for promoting innovation.

The paper drew some dire conclusions about the cost of troll suits, such as:

Trolls bring suits involving software patents 62 percent of the time; when those suits involve patents that have been litigated more than once, they concern software 94 percent of the time.

When trolls sue, small companies pay more in direct litigation costs than their larger counterparts.

Defendants' costs are more than just for lawyers and litigation, they include "diversion of management or engineering resources, delays in new product introductions and improvements, loss or delay of revenue, and credit constraints."

The threat of troll litigation causes companies to reduce their R&D budgets in order to afford high legal costs.

Perhaps most troubling, the paper points out that trolls "may skew the research agenda of small firms away from disruptive technologies and toward mainstream technology and associated patents that can be asserted against big incumbents. Even worse, small firms are encouraged to divert investment from genuine invention toward simply obtaining broad and vague patents that might one day lead to a credible, if weak, lawsuit."

Last week also saw an important ruling from Judge Richard Posner in a case between Apple and Motorola. The case started as a run-of-the-mill patent mess between the two parties, but Judge Posner used the opportunity to express some of his displeasure with the patent system (the influential judge had already publicly spoken out against the patent system and called it "chaos" during the hearings). After more than a year of litigation, Judge Posner threw the parties out of court, essentially faulting them for not being able to show how each was damaged by the other’s alleged patent infringement.

This case highlights some of the worst problems we’ve seen in litigation concerning software patents. The first is a patent owner’s attempts to extract millions of dollars in damages or shut down entire products for infringing only one patent that covers a mere fraction of the defendant’s product (check out proposal #6 at defendinnovation.org). In admonishing Apple, Judge Posner rightly pointed out that not only is this practice absurd, but it can harm consumers who rely on the products at issue.

The second important issue involves a party's ability to enforce its patents that cover industry standards. Here, Motorola asserted that Apple infringed a patent that covered communications between cell phones and cell towers (no, we're not kidding, and yes, that would cover almost every cell phone). Because this is what's called a "standard essential patent," Motorola agreed to license it on "fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms" (FRAND) to anyone who needs to use it. In other words, Motorola cannot use its patent to stop other cell phone companies from selling phones that actually make calls (so long as those companies are willing to pay for a "reasonable" license). Frankly, it would be better if this technology were free to all, but, given the current state of affairs, we're at least glad to see Judge Posner reaffirm this important principle.

The Bessen and Meurer paper and Judge Posner's ruling provide further evidence of what we already know: the patent system needs serious help. Software patents—and the cottage industry of litigation and licensing surrounding them—have created an environment that threatens businesses, consumers, and, worst of all, innovation. We're glad to see more sanity in the debate as people talk about what the real problems are and what we can do to fix them—whether it be implementing the proposals at defendinnovation.org or even abolishing software patents altogether. We hope you'll join the conversation at defendinnovation.org and tell us what you think, too.

Related Updates

Patent owners shouldn’t be allowed to keep basic facts about their patents secret—especially when they initiate litigation in courts, which are presumptively open to the public. Uniloc is one of the worst examples of such a company: it doesn’t make any products, but sues lots of others that do. Then...

This is one of many patent cases filed by Uniloc--one of the most active patent trolls in the world that filed more than 170 lawsuits in a year. Since then, various Uniloc entities have filed hundreds of patent suits, including this one against Apple in the Northern District of...

Update 5/23/19: Senator Tillis' office has published language for a draft bill. While the bill no longer references a closed statutory list, or a "practical application test," our concerns about the bill largely remain. In recent years, we’ve made major progress getting courts to give full effect to...

Last month, we asked EFF supporters to help save Alice v. CLS Bank, the 2014 Supreme Court decision that has helped stem the tide of stupid software patents and abusive patent litigation. The Patent Office received hundreds of comments from you, telling it to do the right thing and apply...

What if we allowed some people to patent the law and then demand money from the rest of us just for following it? As anyone with a basic understanding of democratic principles can see, that is a terrible idea. In a democracy, elected representatives write laws that apply to everyone...

The Supreme Court took a major step in cutting back on abstract software patents when it issued its landmark ruling in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. Since then, courts have thrown out hundreds of patents that never should have issued. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s ruling is under threat. The...

The exclusive rights granted by a U.S. patent create monopolies that can threaten innovation. We all benefit from the pro-innovation effects that come from cancelling monopolies that should not exist. That’s why the 2012 America Invents Act broadly allows “[a]ny person other than the patent owner” to challenge a...

At EFF, we review court dockets to monitor the conduct of the most active patent trolls. But when court records are redacted or sealed, it can be impossible for EFF and other members of the public to know what is going on. Today we filed a motion to intervene...

In 2018, technologists and users continued to be plagued by abstract, ridiculous software patents. The good news is there are more ways than ever before to fight back against those patents—some of them pretty effective. Unfortunately, patent trolls and abusive patent owners are working overtime to knock down those recent...